06/12/2011

Background: This review analyses and summarises the recent advances in understanding the neurobiology of violence and empathy, taxonomical issues on defining personality disorders characterised by disregard for social norms, evidence for efficacy of different treatment modalities and ethical implications in defining 'at-risk' individuals for preventive interventions.

Methods: PubMed was searched with the keywords 'antisocial personality disorder', 'dissocial personality disorder' and 'psychopathy'. The search was limited to articles published in English over the last 10 years (1999 to 2009)

Results: Both diagnostic manuals used in modern psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published by the American Psychiatric Association and the International Classification of Diseases published by the World Health Organization, identify a personality disorder sharing similar traits. It is termed antisocial personality disorder in the diagnostic and statistical manual and dissocial personality disorder in the International Classification of Diseases. However, some authors query the ability of the existing manuals to identify a special category termed 'psychopathy', which in their opinion deserves special attention. On treatment-related issues, many psychological and behavioural therapies have shown success rates ranging from 25% to 62% in different cohorts. Multisystemic therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy have been proven efficacious in many trials. There is no substantial evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological therapy. Currently, the emphasis is on early identification and prevention of antisocial behaviour despite the ethical implications of defining at-risk children.Conclusions: Further research is needed in the areas of neuroendocrinological associations of violent behaviour, taxonomic existence of psychopathy and efficacy of treatment modalities.

06/08/2011

In Italy, a judge reduced the sentence of a defendant by 1 year in response to evidence for a genetic predisposition to violence. The best characterized of these genetic differences, those in the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), were cited as especially relevant. Several months previously in the USA, MAOA data contributed to a jury reducing charges from 1st degree murder (a capital offence) to voluntary manslaughter. Is there a rational basis for this type of use of MAOA evidence in criminal court? This paper will review in context recent work on the MAOA gene–environment interaction in predisposing individuals to violence and address the relevance of such findings to murder trials. Interestingly, the MAOA genetic variants impact future violence and aggression only when combined with the adverse environmental stimuli of childhood maltreatment. Thus nature and nurture interact to determine the individual’s risk. Based on current evidence, I argue there is a weak case for mitigation. But should future experiments confirm the hypothesis that individual differences in impulse control and response to provocation found in MAOA-L men (without abuse) are significantly magnified when combined with childhood maltreatment, the case could turn into a stronger one.

05/31/2011

"Planning a sojourn in the northeastern United States? You could soon be taking part in a novel security programme that can supposedly 'sense' whether you are planning to commit a crime.

Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), a US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programme designed to spot people who are intending to commit a terrorist act, has in the past few months completed its first round of field tests at an undisclosed location in the northeast, Nature has learned.

Like a lie detector, FAST measures a variety of physiological indicators, ranging from heart rate to the steadiness of a person's gaze, to judge a subject's state of mind. But there are major differences from the polygraph. FAST relies on non-contact sensors, so it can measure indicators as someone walks through a corridor at an airport, and it does not depend on active questioning of the subject.

The tactic has drawn comparisons with the science-fiction concept of 'pre-crime', popularized by the film Minority Report, in which security services can detect someone's intention to commit a crime. Unlike the system in the film, FAST does not rely on a trio of human mutants who can see the future. But the programme has attracted copious criticism from researchers who question the science behind it."

In this paper, our goal is to (a) survey some of the legal contexts within which violence risk assessment already plays a prominent role, (b) explore whether developments in neuroscience could potentially be used to improve our ability to predict violence, and (c) discuss whether neuropredictive models of violence create any unique legal or moral problems above and beyond the well worn problems already associated with prediction more generally. In “Violence Risk Assessment and the Law”, we briefly examine the role currently played by predictions of violence in three high stakes legal contexts: capital sentencing (“Violence Risk Assessment and Capital Sentencing”), civil commitment hearings (“Violence Risk Assessment and Civil Commitment”), and “sexual predator” statutes (“Violence Risk Assessment and Sexual Predator Statutes”). In “Clinical vs. Actuarial Violence Risk Assessment”, we briefly examine the distinction between traditional clinical methods of predicting violence and more recently developed actuarial methods, exemplified by the Classification of Violence Risk (COVR) software created by John Monahan and colleagues as part of the MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence [1]. In “The Neural Correlates of Psychopathy”, we explore what neuroscience currently tells us about the neural correlates of violence, using the recent neuroscientific research on psychopathy as our focus. We also discuss some recent advances in both data collection (“Cutting-Edge Data Collection: Genetically Informed Neuroimaging”) and data analysis (“Cutting-Edge Data Analysis: Pattern Classification”) that we believe will play an important role when it comes to future neuroscientific research on violence. In “The Potential Promise of Neuroprediction”, we discuss whether neuroscience could potentially be used to improve our ability to predict future violence. Finally, in “The Potential Perils of Neuroprediction”, we explore some potential evidentiary (“Evidentiary Issues”), constitutional (“Constitutional Issues”), and moral (“Moral Issues”) issues that may arise in the context of the neuroprediction of violence.

11/04/2010

WIRED recently ran a piece--with the sensational title, "Genes Make Some Youth Take More Risks"--that explores research in behavioral genetics that focuses on genetic predispositions to risky behavior.

09/30/2010

ABC News recently posted a piece entitled "Software Predicts Criminal Behavior" which examines the software that has been developed by Richard Berk and colleagues for the purposes of violence risk assessment. Legal decision makers in Washington D.C. are going to be using the software to make determinations concerning sentencing and bail.

05/18/2010

Radio Health Journal has a series of interesting interviews with Kent Kiehl, Stephen Morse, and others concerning psychopathy, neuroscience, and the law. Go here to listen to the recording (beginning at the 2 minute mark).

08/12/2009

A hat-tip to Tom Clark for bringing this exciting pod-cast to my attention. It turns out the American Enterprise Institute hosted a conference back in 2005 entitled The New Neuromorality, which had an all-star cast of speakers including LANP fellows Martha Farrah, Josh Greene, Hank Greely, and Stephen Morse as well as other scholars such as Steven Pinker and Philip Tetlock. Needless to say, the 5+ hours of talks by some of the leading researchers from psychology, philosophy, and the law are both interesting and illuminating.

08/03/2009

Imagine that John and Jim are
both basketball stars. However, their
similarities end there. John is a
physical specimen who was graced from birth with both speed and
athleticism. Given his innate physical
skills, basketball was always easy for him.
Indeed, with a 40 inch vertical leap and amazing hand-eye coordination,
he easily became one of the best basketball players in his state without ever
having to practice particularly hard.
Jim, on the other hand, was not so blessed, physically speaking. Despite the fact that (a) he was not particularly
athletic, and that (b) basketball did not come naturally to him, he had a true passion
for the game as a child. As a result, he
practiced night and day until his skills were so well honed that he, too,
became one of the best basketball players in the state.

At the end of the day, I think
many of us would give Jim more credit for his success at basketball than John. On my view, we
both would and should admire Jim’s success more than John’s under these circumstances
because acquiring the requisite skills required a lot more effort on Jim’s part. So, while we might be impressed with John’s
freakish athleticism, we have more admiration for Jim’s hard earned success. For present purposes, I want to call this the
“Effort Effect" (EE). By my lights, EE often
plays an important role in how we evaluate the actions of others.